Re: branch-2-0 vs CVS HEAD

[Gary V. Vaughan]

Hallo Ralf,

On 29 Aug 2005, at 12:43, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Hi Gary,
>
> private mail on purpose?

Nup, my MUA is playing silly buggers. :-(  Might go back to webmail  
until
I've had chance to configure Thunderbird the way it's behaving atm! Grr.

[Quoting everything for the sake of readers on the list.]

> * Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 12:38:50PM CEST:
> > On 29 Aug 2005, at 07:29, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > > * Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Sun, Aug 28, 2005 at 11:56:31PM CEST:
> > > > Regardless, LTDL_INIT is not documented at the moment, and I'm not
> > > > sure we want to explicitly support use of libltdl except as a
> > > > subpackage.   Although it has been possible to do so for quite some
> > > > time (if only because  libtool itself has done so on and off  
> > > > over the
> > > > last few years), we have never really *designed* an interface  
> > > > for it.
> > > > Post-2.0, we can always firm up a long term interface, document it
> > > > and
> > > > *then* make a commitment to support that interface in the future.
> > >
> > > I don't understand this paragraph at all.  From what I could gather,
> > > this was one of *the* new features to be advertised for the next
> > > stable
> > > version.
> >
> > If I have touted this as a feature, I've forgotten.  Mea culpa.
>
> Actually, I don't /know/ whether you did that, or I just always
> understood wrongly.  At least it seems Bob misunderstood then, too.

Good point.

> > >  When Bob reported several times that it was nonfunctional,
> > > never was there a reply of yours stating this wasn't intended  
> > > feature.
> >
> > It certainly ought to work, because libtool itself is using it.
>
> Libtool is not using LT_WITH_LTDL in $top_srcdir/configure.ac.
> But client packages need to have the additional configure switches and
> logic which is only triggered by LT_WITH_LTDL.
>
> If OTOH you add LT_WITH_LTDL to configure.ac, at least the
> AC_CONFIG_SUBDIRS at its end breaks libltdl-as-non-subpackage.
>
> Was this bug description halfway understandable?

Yep.  Thanks.

> > > While I can see you backing up because you want to move closer to  
> > > this
> > > release, I cannot understand how you can argue now that this was  
> > > not a
> > > feature users should be able to profit from.
> >
> > I am backing up because I want to release 2.0 asap.  On reflection, I
> > can't see any problem with supporting the current API for the
> > forseeable  future.  I'll work on a doc patch today.
>
> Please keep the above in mind.  It would be very cool if this could be
> made to work.

Sure.

Cheers,
    Gary.
--
Gary V. Vaughan      ())_.  gary@ 
{lilith.warpmail.net,gnu.org},address@hidden
Research Scientist   ( '/   http://www.tkd.kicks-ass.net
GNU Hacker           / )=   http://www.gnu.org/software/{libtool,m4}
Technical Author   `(_~)_   http://sources.redhat.com/autobook

PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part